1nterceptor

"Just when you think Miami couldn't possibly be more hostile to bicyclists, the village council of Key Biscayne is suggesting Miami-Dade County charge the public to pedal on the Rickenbacker Causeway, one of the most popular spots to ride.

Making cyclists pay a toll for their own safety is akin to a punishment for merely riding a bike," Chester said. "Bear in mind, most cyclists are also motorists as well, often driving to Key Biscayne and paying the toll before they ride... This shortsighted idea will discourage cycling. It will also make biking more dangerous by reducing cyclists’ numbers on the road, and eroding the well-documented 'safety in numbers' effect."

Read the full article:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1862693.html

myrridin

Should a motorist who uses a toll facility more than once for a given trip not pay multiple tolls. The principal is the same... One pays the toll each time one uses a facility. That does not mean the cyclists are being charged twice, while implying no one else is...

genec

If all road users are not paying a toll relative to their vehicle, then this is a tax specific to one means of transportation, and thus a fine against cycling.

If all other road users are paying a toll (usually based on axles or weight) then such a toll is fair.

Commodus

Every time a discussion like this comes up, I think there needs to be a frank, realistic discussion regarding the costs to society of varying modes of transportation. If it turns out that cycling is in fact being subsidized by the non-cycling public, then sure. Tax me. I do not think this is how the figures will fall.

Keith99

Actually the link indicates that now cars pay and bikes do not. The bike toll would be used to put physical barriers between the bike lane and cars. Somethign of no benefit to cars but a significant benefir ot cyclists.

Yet some cycling advocates whine about this. And we wonder why cyclists get a bad image.

chrisb71

It didn't sound like a big deal at first, but after reading the arguments I must agree.

Those cyclists already paid for road infrastructure through property tax and sales tax. The toll for cyclists is a symptom of completely misunderstanding who funds transportation. Car drivers often think they pay their share, and their driving is not subsidied.

Adding a toll for bikes will probably just drive down usage, which will then be used to say "we don't need a separation, no one is using it to bike down"

genec

Based on this response, I'd have to agree with the toll. If motorists are paying, so too should cyclists.

Commodus

Much of my tax money has been used for motorist-only infrastructure. If this is the rationale we want to use, I think I'm due for some pretty big reimbursement cheques.

myrridin

Much of everyone's tax payments go for things they do not use... Doesn't mean they are entitled to refunds...

BTW, every time you purchase an item you have received benefit from the transportation infrastructure that was used to get that item from where it was grown/manufactured to where it was delivered/purchased by you...

Bekologist

The city council of Key Biscayne wants to actively discourage cycling to and from their little, $850,000 median price homey island community.

what a collective bunch of gas huffing elitist NIMBYS. The Rickenbacker causeway serves a state park as well as Key Biscayne.

I'm not fond of the idea of collecting maintenance and upkeep fees from bicyclists to keep them safe from the damaging and hazardous vehicles, against which user tolls are rightfully levied against.

Sooner Rider

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't have a problem with this proposal. They're proposing to build a safety barrier that would protect cyclists (and I also suspect pedestrians), so why shouldn't cyclists be expected to pay a portion of its cost? Far from discouraging the use of bicycles, I believe that it would encourage cycling by providing greater safety - would you rather ride in harm's way, or on the other side of a concrete barrier?

Commodus

Obviously, and such was the point I was making, regarding the post I quoted. Really man, reading is your friend.

Commodus

I'm guessing that most cyclists are already tax payers, so they're already paying it. Further, cyclists' tax money is regularly used for things they can not use at all, leaving plenty left in the pot to build the occasional barrier.

Bekologist

The toll is for a protective barrier, right? The cause of the threat is not the fault of the bicyclists, it rests firmly with the motorists on the causeway.


Since the cars are the dangerous element in the equation, the motor vehicle tolls should pay for the barrier.

if the bicyclists were the threat then the cost should be borne by the bicyclists.

Commodus

Yea, that too.

B. Carfree

Spot on, both times. Nicely said, Bek.

oronzous

If a tool boot for bikes is placed near the bridge (probably the only rideable incline in the whole county and hence a popular biking spot) then yes, riders that get there with their cars would end up paying twice

rydabent

In this day and age of tax and spend b'crats digging for every dollar they can lay their hands on, this is no surprise.

myrridin

Sorry, but anyone who goes over the bridge twice will be asked to pay twice. That was the point...


Folks, grow up... The infrastructure needs funding to maintain it. Since no one has the fortitude to collect that funding using traditional mechanisms, we will continue to see more and more of these 'user fees'.

Daves_Not_Here

Trying to wrap my head around this:

Under no circumstances should cyclists ever be charged a toll, even when it will partially fund infrastructure that directly benefits cyclists. At the same time cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users.

Sounds like teenage thinking to me: we behave as irresponsible children, but we demand the respect and priviledges afforded to responsible adults.

Commodus

nonsense post.

Sooner Rider

Let's not confuse general taxes with user fees - a tax is rarely paid by specific people for specific benefit (I'm childless but my property taxes fund public schools), but a bridge toll is for specific benefit of the user (motorist or cyclist).

To those who want to make motorists pay for the barrier that protects cyclists, I say that its improper to impose a fee on another party just because they impose a threat. However, if an actual injury occurs, recourse is provided through the criminal and civil justice systems based upon the specific injury. I wear a helmet because it offers greater safety in a crash, but I don't expect anyone else to pay for it. The same holds true for the ABS brakes and airbags in my car.

myrridin

Perhaps this will help you understand what he was saying

Commodus

Somehow it still fails to address either argument, while insulting all who disagree.

Bekologist

Actually, it's been almost 80 years since the US supreme court ruled states can, indeed should regulate motor vehicles, license them, levy fees for road upkeep and require insurance due to their hazardous and damaging nature.

People that drive cars should expect to pay all sorts of fees due to the threat to others and damaging effect on infrastructure.